Every review out there, every one, remarks on this movie as a female-centric film. That deserves some exploration to begin with. It is directed by a man. It is produced by a man. So what all these reviews are noting is that the film is written by women and starring women. The latter, of course, is not unusual -- most movies feature women, even in leading roles. What they’re noting as unusual here is that the women are funny. And what the marketers and promoters of this movie contend is that the very fact of this film -- women being gross and lowbrow and funny and for sale -- is a triumph for women and that seeing it is a feminist act.

It seems important, then, to look at the film critically from a feminist perspective, and I have some complaints. Many of them are, in fact, the usual complaints. Here we learn:

1) Single women are losers. Annie’s life is a disaster. The sex she has with the hottest man in pop culture right now (John Hamm) degrades her because it holds no promise of a relationship (consider how much of a loser we’d label a hapless male lead for having commitment-less sex with the hottest woman going). She has weird, unsuitable roommates and then lives with her mom. Her business fails and closes and then she even loses her mindless backup job. She has no money; her car doesn’t work; she can’t afford to be a real friend (love, of course, being nowhere near enough). But much, much worse than any of that is this central tragedy, presented as such: her best friend gets engaged. Plus, to top it all off, despite the fact that she is reed thin, she makes several comments over the course of the film as to her jealousy that her rival is so much skinnier than she is (she isn’t, best I could tell). Speaking of which, we also learn that...

2) Fat women aren’t really women.

Here we have four Hollywood-thin bridesmaids who each embody a female caricature (single loser, rich wife, naive newlywed, and mom) and one large woman presented so butch that she’s barely female at all. In fact, that she’s heterosexual, worthy of love, and can attract a man is one of the film’s final punchlines. Speaking of attracting a man, we learn that...

3) Weddings = happy ending. Even when they’re disastrous. Even when the love story is so underdeveloped that the groom appears on screen for about a minute. Even when their ruin has been the topic of the previous two hours. This truth extends to show us that unloved, uncoupled heroine = loser whereas equally poor, equally unemployed, equally socially inept heroine at the end but with the promise of a boyfriend also = happy ending. Which brings us to my final usual complaint...

Is Annie happy for her lifelong friend Lillian when she gets engaged? No, not even for a moment. Can she swallow her annoyance with Lillian’s new friends or her own feelings of inadequacy and jealousy or put aside the challenges in her own life for just a little while while her best friend gets married? She cannot. She’s supposed to be endearing, suffering from slightly exaggerated, comic versions of the flaws we all share. Instead, she’s selfish, self-absorbed, and a really shitty friend. This is especially alarming because usually the friendships are the heart of Judd Apatow movies. The media has labeled them “bro-mances,” and that slightly ridiculous monicker seems in fact appropriate to me because what’s enjoyable about those movies is the pleasure of watching these friendships -- the pack of endearing guys who are crass and gross and just want to get laid but nonetheless have one another’s backs and, though they rarely admit it, really care about each another. They’re the reason why these movies work. The friendships are the sweet parts holding together the grossness and crassness and over-the-top slapstick humor. Bridesmaids has grossness, crassness, and over-the-top slapstick humor but, lacking these friendships, nothing to hold it together. This is a movie about friendship and a wedding which is almost entirely lacking in love. Worse, it reinforces stereotypes that women can’t support each other when weddings, money, men, or other skinny women are involved.

That’s not feminism folks. It’s the opposite.

Meanwhile, here’s complaint #5, the unusual one. This movie is earning praise for women being just as raunchy, gross, and scatological as men. Think only men can make money making movies where they shit and vomit on screen? Think it’s only funny when guys puke on one another’s heads or have diarrhea in a sink? Wrong. Great dawning day for women! Now they too can poop and puke on the big screen. So what we learn is in fact not that women are funny too or that women can be as funny as men but rather, again, the opposite -- that women can only be funny by being as much like men as possible, that women’s humor does not earn them a place on the big screen, that only men’s humor is worthy of that spot. Women are earning condescending praise here -- for not being squeamish, prudish, I-won’t-see-that-kind-of-movie nags. Does that sound like the voices of talented, powerful, groundbreaking artists finally being heard? No, it sounds like farting in a wedding gown.

3 comments:

people fart. farting is funny. women are people. so shouldn't it be funny when women do it too? I don't know. I think they've made a good solid comedy here, and while it may not be the last word is feminism... I mean the women and men behind this movie, they've created something. It may not be pure genius, but they've made something. it's pretty good. It's funny. It's new and different in a few small ways. and here you're just wagging your finger. I find this kind of humorless polemic in the face of comedic creativity a little distasteful. Insofar as your target is the over the top praise the movie has gotten, I'm with you. But in terms of the comedy world, I do think it marks better days when you compare it to the John Belushi-era chauvinism. So I guess I want to defend at least the movie itself a little here.

I love this piece. I love that someone is out there saying it. People might find the movie funny, people might find the movie "new", but noone can say the movie is "a triumph for women" and a shining light for feminism. I don't think you're having a dig at the movie on its creative contribution - I interpreted what you're saying as a reaction to all the people out there who want to mark it as a step forward for women purely because it features a majorily female cast. You are dead right, no female in 50 years time is going to mark the day Bridesmaids was released as a pivotal turning point in the deobjectification of women in film. Sure it might be a fun movie which is all it should be proclaimed as. I for one am sick of every film with a predominantly female cast being seen as a major leap forward for the women's movement. How did the female writer's salary compare to her equivalent male peers? How did the actresses pay checks compare to those of the males in equivalent roles? Pretty depressing that a movie written by a woman, predominantly featuring women, is heralded as something "different" and "refreshing" in the 21st century - depressing that a decade into the new century it still isn't just one more "norm".